Bob Carter's article on the link below is excellent as well

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

Excerpt:

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
Bob Cartner

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

lack of class

"I'm a bit jaded - after the populaiton bomb failed to explode"

Au contraire, Il Duce. Look around you. There are too many people on this planet. Remember those expiriments in college psychology? You put too many rats in a confined space and there is a marked increase in abberant behavior. I realize your faith compels you to campaign for more and more tithers, er people. But man this planet can't support the population we have.

Living in Las Vegas, you of all people should understand this.

Who the hell is Bob Cartne? And why should we believe him instead of a virtual army of scientists?

Mark, other anti-Science, Bible-thumping folks:

What do you consider to be the greater physical threat against the United States - terrorism, or global warming?

This should be interesting.

maf53, do you really need to ask?

"Buckle your seat belts America" and join our quest with the "Energy Revolution" by using our little green "FUEL SAVER PILLS",they help reduce harmful CO2 Emissions and can save all of us 25 to 50 cents on every gallon of gas or diesel fuel we burn!! We are doing our part to reduce Global Warming are you? Have an awesome one America and we will "See You @ The Pump"...cheers.

Respectfully,Brent Mann "Regional Manager"
727-686-7562 Direct

Meh, I'm tired, so forgive me if this post is less cordial than usual. After this I'm conkin' out.

maf53,

First, why do you insist on bunching anti-science and conservatives together? Aren't the liberals the ones basing their dooms-day predictions on rhetoric and deviating from even the most pessimistic observations? And stop grouping religion into it, you ninny! Don't alienate 30% of your base!

Second, seeing as how terrorism is a widely agreed-upon problem, and global warming is still in debate about who is the primary cause of it and what's the best way to treat it, terrorism is obviously the most pressing problem that we can hope to treat.

Ash,

Don't argue the reporter, but the information given. If what he says is true, that the temperature has actually decreased despite the common belief and the soaring uses of gasoline, then the doomsday claims about global warming may indeed be exaggerated. I read it, and I must say that if the data he's referring to is accurate, there's no reason not to trust what he says. As for the army of scientists...look at this thread...career at stake...scientific hacks...yada yada. Can you connect the dots?

I remember sometime one group of scientists reported something like the average temperature of the earth has increased more rapidly since the invention of the automobile, and reporters leapt to conclusions and said that Humans were thus the primary cause of global warming.

Noonan: "we'd have to admit that we don't have a firm idea of what is really happening in the climate,"

Lindzen:"Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true."

Did you even read the article?

And whats with the rant about the "left"? Although there are ideological positions that political types take on this issue, the science is non-partisan. Most climate specialists conclude warming is taking place. A few don't. Its based on their take on the evidence, not their politics.

What would it take to convince you that the warming is real? Reading the scientific literature yourself (ha ha)? Or would you only accept it if some number of prominent conservative politicians accepted it?

This is so not a debate. It is real and it is happening and the only part of the world that seems to be unaffected by it is The White House and his cronies in the energy industry.

"Climate change is perhaps the most challenging collective action problem the world has faced."- Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Great Britain

"The debate on climate change is over. As far as the Howard Government is concerned, Australians must accept that humans contribute to global warming and adapt their behaviour to save the planet."-Ian Campbell, Environment Minister of Australia

Ash,

That is nonsense; there's plenty of room for more people - the strange behaviour we see is just the result of a century of leftism erroding the moral base of society. As was said ages ago: we're not worried that athiests will believe in nothing, but that they'll believe anything that comes along. The past century is Q.E.D. on that.

Maf,

Well, given that even if the world is warming it only means that, well, things will be warmer, I can't see how that is as much a threat as, say, some lunatic with a nuke in New York City...

Is climate change happening? Yes. Is it because of human effects? Yes, we do have some impacts. Fact: the earth has gone through patterns in the past of where warming and cooling occur. Records have only been kept by the National Weather Service since the late 1800's and since the Earth has been around for much longer the sampling that the media gives is not very accurate. Also, the reporting stations in cities used to be on the outskirts of towns and since alot of cities have expanded temperatures climb because of the urban heat island affect. Cities stay warmer than areas that don't have pavement because heat from the suns rays stay in the pavement and then is released back into the atmosphere after the sun sets, thus keeping temperatures higher.
As for the prediction of warming, Climatologist can only look at patterns in the past, fosils, and other geological information to come up with their forecasts. Most of the time it's just a best guess anyway. Remember the 1970's when everyone thought another ice age was on the way?
As for the political reasonings for this, the left looks at that Bush pulled out of the Kyoto treaty as the main reason for Global Warming. When in fact he pulled out becuase the treaty does not account for the 2 countries responcable for the most pollution in the world, India and China. Those 2 countries cause far much more pollution that the USA does. Prof of that can be seen in what is happening to Alaska over the past 10 years. Alaksa is warming at an alarming rate. Winters don't last as long. The main reason for all of this? The pollution from China and India heads that way due to the weather patterns. Yet the USA gets slammed for getting out of the treaty, when nothing is done about India and China not being included. If all the worlds major countries were included, then we could have a chance of stopping the human affects. But as long as China and India are out we cannot stop the affects of pollution. Should the USA be in the Kyoto treaty? yes...but I understand why they are protesting that China and India aren't included.
Be careful when listening to what the media tells you aboue Global Warming. Alot of the information is wrong and they know that this is such a big issue that people will listen to anything they say about it. Last years hurricanes were not caused by global warming just like last weeks severe thunderstorms and tornadoes over the central USA were not. EL Nino does not have anything to do with Global Warming. Just be carefull to what you hear on this subject.

I not more believe all the hype about global warming now than I did in 1975 when the same group of folks claimed we were all going to die from global cooling.

The same people who promote this are the haters of freedom and capitalism. Just one example is to note who is exempt from the Kyoto treaty. Do you know? If things are that dire, then no one should be exempt. They are not and these people know it

Anyways, who says we could adapt to such changes whether it is caused by solar activity or other causes.

I am not sure why this is a political issue but it is revealing.

After exhaustive research on the right wing blogs it seems that mark et al believe or support the notion that global warming is junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

I think they also believe that tobacco's link to cancer is suspect.

"the left must be purged from any sort of political power"

And then you'll make the trains run on time?

Sorry, couldn't resist. RealClimate and Prometheus are two excellent climate science sites that don't engage in alarmism.

Ug. I have no opinion on whether or not the US should join Kyoto, or whether or not Kyoto would be effective, but one thing I do know is that the countries you believe are exempt (China and India) are not exempt.

The Kyoto treaty set a cap for pollution. China and India are below the cap and thus can expand the amount they release until they reach cap levels. If they go over then they'd have to reduce emissions. Would you really expect developing nations to have to commit in perpetuity to drastically lower levels of emissions than developed nations?

Well Mark, I will never be able to bore a hole through that numbskull of yours on overpopulation. Just because there is elbow room for more people does not mean there are the resources to sustain them. Ask any cattleman what I mean.

I did not say I was an athiest, so that was a cheap shot.

So whats your pat answer? Blame it on the liberals. It has nothing to do with the greedy capitalists.

To Mark Noonan,

I recall having a conversation with a friend of mine last year and I was thinking pretty much the same thing about weather news report and I have to say that even a month sounds way too much, sometimes even the News Weather forecasts wrongly predict tomorrow's weather.
In a planet that pretty much exists for millions and millions of years, 150 years of recorded climate patterns just doesn't seem enough to back such claims that humans are directly responsible for weather change.
And Al Gore should quite frankly get his head examined, Jay Leno had a great joke about him when he claimed Terrorism was not as important as global wraming.

To Mark Noonan,

I recall having a conversation with a friend of mine last year and I was thinking pretty much the same thing about weather news report and I have to say that even a month sounds way too much, sometimes even the News Weather forecasts wrongly predict tomorrow's weather.
In a planet that pretty much exists for millions and millions of years, 150 years of recorded climate patterns just doesn't seem enough to back such claims that humans are directly responsible for weather change.
And Al Gore should quite frankly get his head examined, Jay Leno had a great joke about him when he claimed Terrorism was not as important as global wraming.

Righty logic: There was no ice age in the ‘70’s so that is proof that global warming is a myth.

So I can apply that by: Saddam did not reconstitute his nuclear program, so neither is Iran.

See how that works.

"Don't argue the reporter, but the information given."

The reporter, Richard Lindzen, was a highly paid ($1250 per diem) consultant during the '90's for the coal and oil industry puts his credibility in question. A fact Mr. Noonan ignored or did not know.

Global temperatures vary around the world, so an overall average doesn't necessarily tell the story. Non-luddites know without question that global warming is the most pressing problem facing our world today. It may be 2* colder in the Amazon, and that offsets the 2* warmer in the Arctic. And guess what happens when the Arctic starts melting?

Why are they so firm in their belief?

"Secondary evidence for temperature changes can be obtained by observing things that are predicted to be affected by temperature changes, such as variations in the snow cover and ice extent, sea level rise, precipitation , cloud cover , El Niño and extreme weather events."

Exactly what secondary evidence do they have?

"For example, satellite data shows a 10% decrease of snow cover since the late 1960s and the Northern Hemisphere spring and summer sea-ice extent has decreased by about 10% to 15% since the 1950s and there has been a widespread retreat of mountain glaciers in non-polar regions throughout the 20th century."

So Omega, there is why I doubt the credibility of Lindzen and my reasons for saying his data is "kerfluffle" to use Noonans terms.

Wether this is soley a normal cycle in the earths climate or that we contribute to the severity of it, it is happening.

Let's keep the politics out of it and decide what we need to do with it. Melting ice caps raise the level of oceans which reclaim land that is now settled. The severity of storms is on the increase.

Damn I am going out of town on a camping trip and won't be near a computer. And this is the issue of the day, ladies and gents.

We must educate ourselves and start acting immediately. I'll check back in a couple of days.

Ash

Bob Carter is a reporter. His data is the same data set that everyone else use's. Why don't you argue the data their sunshine?

If you don't believe the reporter, why not the Harvard / MIT study that says global warming is cyclical? Why not the UCLA study that says the same thing.

Remember, it was only 35 years ago that scientists were predicting an Ice Age right about now....oh the irony. In fact it made the cover of Life Magazine in the early 1970's.

Ash,

I wasn't directly calling you an athiest - and I do apologise that it appeared so...just pointing out that if you don't believe in the eternal truth, you'll end up falling for everything - including the notion that there are too many people on earth (which was first opined 200 years ago).

Have a great trip - just to be nice, I'll see about putting up a general environmental post some time next week.

No, Barney you don't get it and your comparisions are not very clever either.

The same arguements were made in the 70's.
They were wrong then and they are now. The earth goes throgh cycles. Get over it and enjoy the warm weather. while it lasts. By the time most of us are old it will be colder again and some new schmucks will be making some doomsday claims. I'll be laughing then too.

"This is so not a debate." sez Lobes

Could you conjugate that sentance for us?

From what I see of the leftist and environmental wackoos who have posted above "Its SO not a debate" because our side is begger than your side, and our spin is better than your spin.

There are three parts to the debate (which is SO not a debate).

1. Does global warming exist?
I think that most will agree that it does.

2. Is it primarily the result of cyclical solar activity or manmade activity?

Here the debate is less clear, although the weight of the evidence seems to point to solar activity as the PRIMARY cause.

3. Can man stop or reverse global activity?

Here the debate degenerates in to wild speculation by environmentalists, and takes on a decidedly political bent as socialists and thirdworlders try to use this argument to "level the playing field" by restricting the growth of western capitalism.

You leftists immediatley read the the headlines of Time Magazine "Global Warming...Be afraid, be very very afraid", and you immediately become apoplectic, skipping the debate on the second point going straight to the third.

That's why in your minds "its SO not a debate", having been thoughougly indoctrinated by your lefitist teachers from the time that you were still wet behind the ears.

I for one am thankful that the adults are still in charge.

The earth is warmer.

It's caused by the SUN.

Mars is warmer too, just announced...must be all those human beings and SUVs roaming on Mars.

rich said: "As for the political reasonings for this, the left looks at that Bush pulled out of the Kyoto treaty as the main reason for Global Warming. When in fact he pulled out becuase the treaty does not account for the 2 countries responcable for the most pollution in the world, India and China. Those 2 countries cause far much more pollution that the USA does. "
Unfortunately, he got it wrong. [http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm] United States IS the highest, with a per capita rate 8 times higher than China.

phnxbmed: "evidence seems to point to solar activity as the PRIMARY cause"

My goodness, you really are ignorant on this topic arent you? Solar activity is the ONLY cause of global warming. If you had one iota of understanding on the issue you'd know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 Levels are rising due to human activities. More CO2 means the greenhouse effect is intensified.

And economic modelling suggests that switching to alternative energy sources will not involve "restricting the growth of western capitalism" but will in fact create vast amounts of wealth. Just not so much for those who have their fortunes tied up in oil.

As an aside: recent studies seem to indicate a phenomeneon called 'global dimming' in which particulates in the upper atmosphere (soot and dust mostly) are acting to reduce the percentage of the suns rays reaching the troposphere. Thats another concern in itself.

And M Noonan: "I can't see how that [Global Warming] is as much a threat as, say, some lunatic with a nuke in New York City"

You are a fool. If the predictions are borne out (and every new piece of SCIENTIFIC research suggests they will be) some guy with a Nuke is going to be a fond memory. No guy with a nuke could have hoped to do what Katrina did to NOLA. Ten guys could not have.

This is SO not an issue because whether the next president is Red or Blue his (or her) number one priority will be addressing what Bush and his energy industry cronies have been suppressing and obfuscating regarding climate change.

You read it here first.

Right, of course, you're much smarter than all the scientists who say there's global warning. After all, you don't want there to be global warming. It's inconvenient for you, therefore, there can be no global warming. It's a media-driven leftist plot because the left needs global warming to...uh, why does the left need global warming? I forget. But I'm sure there's some terribly cynical reason that you'll be glad to point out and prove with lots of facts and figures, or at least you'll be able to find a columnist somewhere or an obscure scientist to agree with you, which will abolutely prove that you are right once and for all.

Adastra,

Your source is worthless - no environmental organization can be trusted on emissions or any other environmental data as they have a vested interest in things being terrible.

Lobes,

"CO2 Levels are rising due to human activities. More CO2 means the greenhouse effect is intensified."

The primary debate is whether or not human industry and motorized travel is actually enough of a source of CO2 emissions to be of great concern or not. Aren't amounts of CO2 exponentially larger than all of the world's industry output combined released from volcanic activity and other natural events? Plus, I don't know if this is a myth or not, but I recall hearing that if we reverted back to horse-drawn carriages, we'd be putting out even more CO2 than we are right now. So oil industry may not be the primary cause of global warming.

Furthermore, if the data that Carter cites in his article is correct, how could you believe that humanity is a large contributor to global warming when the temperature has gone down? I suppose one can argue that if it wasn't for man-made problems, the temperature would have gone down even more, but is there really any evidence to prove this?

BlackJack,

If you believe everything the majority tells you, you'd be wrong about many things. Decisions shouldn't be made because everyone else says so, but because you yourself have examined the data and determined for yourself the outcome.

Black Jack

I don't know anyone that says it's not warmer right now and that there is global warming. That is not an issue. At issue is what causes it. Is it cyclical.

You do realize that on Mars scientists just stated in the last few months that they are hitting a warming trend.

Now, color me crazy but I believe Mars and Earth receive their heat from the same source...the SUN. It's a large yellow gas ball thing in the sky.

If Mars is increasing in temperature and there are no people and SUVs up there, it would seem to me that cyclical patterns with the SUN can fluctuate temperatures.

Comprende?

Correction...typo...most people, including conservatives believe it is WARMER today. Yes, there is global warming in that sense....why is the issue!

phnxbmed "evidence seems to point to solar activity as the PRIMARY cause"

"My goodness, you really are ignorant on this topic arent you? Solar activity is the ONLY cause of global warming... Lobes

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

Thanks for misquoting me and proving my point MORON. You conviently left out the word CYCLICAL, thereby proving the point that you leftist cretins fail to look at ALL the evidence.

But thanks for admiting that Solar activity is the ONLY cause of global warming, even though you left out CYCLICAL.

BTW: Please explain the fact that they earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. Was it all those SUV's they were driving around?

Does your mom know your on the computer???

"And economic modelling suggests that switching to alternative energy sources will not involve "restricting the growth of western capitalism" but will in fact create vast amounts of wealth. Just not so much for those who have their fortunes tied up in oil." Lobes

Another fanciful myth created to ensnare the childishly naive like Lobes and his environmentalist wacko friends.

Implementation of Kyoto accords would result in the loss of whatever industrial and manufacturing base still left in the west, along with the jobs and salaries of workers in those industries.

The wealth that would be created would be for a few entrepreneurs who develop these devices, and systems. But that would occur with or without Kyoto.

As for the per/capita polution of China and India, only someone who has never been to either country would use such a simplistic statistic. The air quality in industrial cities such as Mumbai, and Shanghai is barely breathable. The rapidly increasing industrial growth of these two countries also means that their rate of pollution is increasing exponentially, because there are virtually no controls on either water or air pollution.

With a combined population of almost 3 Billion people, 10 times that of the US, the rampant pollution in India and China is on a scale which is hard to understand unless seen first hand.

A 1998 World Health Organization report on air quality in 272 cities worldwide concluded that 7 of the world's 10 most polluted cities were in China. By 2004, China had 9 of the 10 most polluted cities.

According to China's own evaluation, two-thirds of the 338 cities for which air-quality data are available are considered polluted--two-thirds of them moderately or severely so. Respiratory and heart diseases related to air pollution are the leading cause of death in China. Almost all of the nation's rivers are considered polluted to some degree, and half of the population lacks access to clean water. Ninety percent of urban water bodies are severely polluted. 100 of Chinese cities face water shortages as a result of pollution, and the rivers eminating from both China and India are nothing short of open sewers, emptying into the oceans.

According to Zhang Lijun, vice minister of China's environmental agency SEPA in the next 15 years, the population of China will reach 1.46 billion and the GDP will double, the pollution load will increase by four to five times according to the present resource consumption rate and pollution control level.

These inconvenient facts don't figure into the statistics that Lobes naively cites.

I think the poster said it right about most people on this list "they will believe in warming when one of their beloved poiticians says it" or maybe jesus's image will appear on a satellite photo of the next hurricane. That might do it too.